States are not legally bound to adopt pay scales or service rules of other States.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh is legally bound to adopt and grant the same pay scales to its employees as those granted by the State of Punjab.

The court held

Himachal Pradesh is not bound by Punjab's pay revisions and that designation similarity does not entitle employees to automatic parity.

It also directed

The Court quashed the Tribunal’s orders dated 13.04.2018 and 09.08.2018.

The HP Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1991, remained valid as they were never challenged.

All writ petitions filed by the State were allowed, and the Respondents' original applications for pay revision were dismissed.

01Facts

The State of Himachal Pradesh (Petitioners) challenged common orders passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in 2018.

pp. 2-3

The Tribunal had directed the State to grant Inspectors (Cooperative Societies) a pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 effective from 01.01.1986, matching the scale granted to counterparts in the State of Punjab.

p. 3, 18

The Respondents (employees) claimed this parity based on the "Punjab pattern" historically followed by Himachal Pradesh and a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment (Harbhajan Singh Bajwa) which removed pay anomalies for Punjab Inspectors.

pp. 7-11

The State contended that it had notified its own Himachal Pradesh Revised Pay Rules on 09.05.1991, prescribing a scale of Rs. 1640-2925 for Inspectors, and was not legally bound to adopt every subsequent change or "selection grade" introduced by Punjab.

pp. 12-13, 23-25

02Issues

i.1. Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh is legally bound to adopt and grant the same pay scales to its employees as those granted by the State of Punjab.

p. 27 / para. 13

ii.2. Whether the grant of a higher pay scale to Inspectors in Punjab based on a relative assessment of other departments can be the basis for inferring a pay anomaly for employees in Himachal Pradesh.

p. 27 / para. 13

iii.3. Whether pay parity can be claimed solely on the basis of similarity in designation or nomenclature in the absence of an express equation of posts by the State.

p. 28, 55

03Law Applied

Entry 41 of List II, Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which grants States exclusive jurisdiction over State Public Services.

¶ 16(i-e)

One State is not bound to follow the rules of another State even if it had adopted them in the past (State of H.P. v. P.D. Attri).

¶ 16(i)

The principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires the claimant to establish a "wholesome identity" between posts regarding qualifications, recruitment, and duties (State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh).

¶ 17(i)

Under Virendra Bahadur Katheria v. State of U.P., pay parity requires a "conscious decision" by the competent authority to equate two posts.

¶ 18(i-a)

Statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 carry a presumption of constitutionality unless specifically challenged.

¶ 19(i-a)

04Reasoning

Himachal Pradesh is a separate legal entity with the sovereign power to regulate its own service conditions.

¶ 16(i-h)

The Tribunal erred by mandating the "Punjab pattern" because the State had already occupied the field by notifying its own Revised Pay Rules in 1991, which the Respondents failed to challenge.

¶ 20(i), 25

The Respondents failed to discharge the "onus of proof" to establish parity, as no material was produced to prove that recruitment modes, qualifications, or responsibilities were identical to the Punjab cadre.

¶ 17(i), 18(ii)

The Punjab scale was a "selection grade" granted to different cadres, which does not automatically translate to a right for HP employees.

¶ 17, 18

The Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by "rewriting" statutory rules, thereby violating the doctrine of separation of powers and encroaching upon executive policy-making.

¶ 19, 19(i-a)